by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jan 22, 2016
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals has held that a construction company is entitled to coverage under its subcontractor’s insurance policy as to claims that it was negligent in its supervision of the subcontractor and the work site. In James G. Davis Construction Corp. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 802, Sept. Term 2014, a construction company and its scaffolding subcontractor were both sued in a personal injury action following the collapse of scaffolding at a residential construction site. In an opinion dated October 28, 2015, the Court of Special Appeals reversed a lower court declaratory judgment ruling, and held that the subcontractor’s liability policy provided coverage for the construction company in response to the plaintiff’s claims that the construction company failed to exercise reasonable care in its control of the construction site, the construction of the scaffolding, and its general supervision of the project.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jan 21, 2016
The text of Senate Bill 168, which would provide for the installation of electric vehicle chargers at condominiums and in homeowner associations, as well as at rental properties, is now available. The proposed legislation would void any provision in condominium and homeowner association documents that unreasonably restricts the installation of chargers, and would regulate and limit the approval process by which a homeowner could secure approval to install a charger.
Here is a link to the full text of the bill: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/bills/sb/sb0168f.pdf
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jan 18, 2016
A bill introduced in the early stages of the 2016 session of the Maryland General Assembly would make provisions for the installation of electric vehicle chargers that impact condominiums and homeowners associations. Senate Bill 168 is sponsored by Senator Brian Feldman of Montgomery County The language of a similar bill introduced during the 2015 session (SB 762), also introduced by Senator Feldman, would void any provision in condominium and homeowner association documents that restricts the installation of chargers, and would regulate and limit the approval process by which a homeowner could secure approval to install a charger. The text of this year’s bill should be available shortly.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jan 14, 2016
Here is a link to my opinion/commentary that was published in The Baltimore Sun on Christmas Day. The full text appears after the break.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-murphy-dissent-20151224-story.html (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jan 13, 2016
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City has entered a significant money judgment against a condominium council of unit owners as a means of enforcing its prior order finding the condominium in contempt for failing to complete court ordered repairs. In a case in which I represented the unit owner, the Circuit Court had originally ordered the Harborview Condominium to undertake and complete, by the end of December 2013, certain specified repairs to the exterior common elements needed to make the building watertight. In July 2014, the Circuit Court held that both the failure to include certain specified items in the repair contract, and the failure to complete the repairs within the time ordered by the Court, amounted to willful contempt, and called for the imposition of sanctions. The Circuit Court further found that the case presented the “exceptional circumstances” required under Maryland law for the award of compensatory damages, consisting of monthly payments to the unit owner continuing until the repairs are completed. The Court also established certain construction deadlines to be met in order for the Condominium to avoid additional damage payments. These rulings were affirmed by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in August 2015. In an order dated December 30, 2015, the Circuit Court directed that the unpaid monthly payments to the unit owner be entered as a money judgment. It further ordered that the total of monthly payments not yet due be accelerated and included in the money judgment. The total money judgment entered exceeds $600,000. (more…)
